[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Guru Acharya]

Hi Bertrand,

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <
bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different
> users of the IANA functions off the table?
>

I don't think anything would be off the table yet.

Can you explain a few details about this option?

Are you suggesting that every registry have a separate contract with the
IANA operator; and that if there is ever a need to change the IANA
operator, every registry re-contracts the new IANA operator as collectively
decided by the community?

If I understand what you are suggesting correctly, I'm curious whether the
ccTLDs would agree to having a direct contract with the IANA operator; and
whether it increases the chances of fragmentation if a subset of the
registries decide to contract someone else; and whether the transaction
costs of multiple contracts would be lower than the transaction costs of
maintaining a company with a single contract?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141127/9dd08f99/attachment.html>